M Schootman1,2, S Hendren3, T Loux4, K Ratnapradipa5, J M Eberth6, N O Davidson7,8. 1. Department of Epidemiology, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, 63104, USA. schootm@slu.edu. 2. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA. schootm@slu.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, 63104, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, 63104, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA. 7. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared patient outcomes of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic colectomy without robotic assistance for colon cancer or nonmalignant polyps, comparing all patients, obese versus nonobese patients, and male versus female patients. METHODS: We used the 2013-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to examine a composite outcome score comprised of mortality, readmission, reoperation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus. We used propensity scores to assess potential heterogeneous treatment effects of RAS by patient obesity and sex. RESULTS: In all, 17.1% of the 10,844 of patients received RAS. Males were slightly more likely to receive RAS. Obese patients were equally likely to receive RAS as nonobese patients. In comparison to nonRAS, RAS was associated with a 3.1% higher adverse composite outcome score. Mortality, reoperations, wound infections, sepsis, pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, blood transfusions, and average length of hospitalization were similar in both groups. Conversion to open surgery was 10.1% lower in RAS versus nonRAS patients, but RAS patients were in the operating room an average of 52.4 min longer. We found no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) by obesity status and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Worse patient outcomes and no differential improvement by sex or obesity suggest more cautious adoption of RAS.
BACKGROUND: We compared patient outcomes of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) and laparoscopic colectomy without robotic assistance for colon cancer or nonmalignant polyps, comparing all patients, obese versus nonobesepatients, and male versus female patients. METHODS: We used the 2013-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data to examine a composite outcome score comprised of mortality, readmission, reoperation, wound infection, bleeding transfusion, and prolonged postoperative ileus. We used propensity scores to assess potential heterogeneous treatment effects of RAS by patientobesity and sex. RESULTS: In all, 17.1% of the 10,844 of patients received RAS. Males were slightly more likely to receive RAS. Obesepatients were equally likely to receive RAS as nonobese patients. In comparison to nonRAS, RAS was associated with a 3.1% higher adverse composite outcome score. Mortality, reoperations, wound infections, sepsis, pulmonary embolisms, deep vein thrombosis, myocardial infarction, blood transfusions, and average length of hospitalization were similar in both groups. Conversion to open surgery was 10.1% lower in RAS versus nonRAS patients, but RAS patients were in the operating room an average of 52.4 min longer. We found no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) by obesity status and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Worse patient outcomes and no differential improvement by sex or obesity suggest more cautious adoption of RAS.
Authors: Michael Marrone; Richard L Schilsky; Geoff Liu; Muin J Khoury; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Gary B Deutsch; Sandeep Anantha Sathyanarayana; Vikraman Gunabushanam; Nitin Mishra; Eugene Rubach; Harry Zemon; Jonathan D S Klein; George Denoto Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sameer Memon; Alexander G Heriot; Declan G Murphy; Mathias Bressel; A Craig Lynch Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mario M Leitao; Wazim R Narain; Donna Boccamazzo; Vasileios Sioulas; Danielle Cassella; Jennifer A Ducie; Ane Gerda Z Eriksson; Yukio Sonoda; Dennis S Chi; Carol L Brown; Douglas A Levine; Elizabeth L Jewell; Oliver Zivanovic; Richard R Barakat; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ginger J Gardner Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344